If we subscribe to the ideas that John La Fleur suggests are correct in his column, we may find ourselves in a scarier, more unfortunate situation than what already exists by not allowing homosexual marriages.

The way that marriage was described to me for as long as I can remember is that it is an institution for which people who love each other can live together with certain benefits and recognition - such as a joint tax situation or health benefits.

Never was it described to me as “a legal union from which children are born.” The idea of marriage for the purpose of procreation is ridiculous. From that, one could infer that marriage is no longer based on love, and that people who adopt children do not deserve to be married. If you say that adoption is an exception, then why deny homosexuals of marriage who would also like to adopt children? Are homosexuals unable to provide an environment suitable to raise children?

Are we to start seeking out married couples without children and forcing them to separate? Maybe our legislators could concoct a policy stating that couples must have at least one child already born before being allowed to get married. However, that would once again interfere with the religious bias of our current government. That is, after all, what this is really about though, isn’t it?

Ray Langevin
computer science and
engineering sophomore